Monday, September 22, 2008

This article is written by George Friedman in Stratfor (www.stratfor.com). Stratfor is known in the intelligence circles as providing some cutting edge research and is seen by think tanks around the globe.

The article :

Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Washington in 2008 for a meeting that diplomatically might be called "nonproductive" -- or, realistically, "disastrous." Not only was nothing settled, but a series of incidents -- ranging from a reporter shouting insults at Hu and being permitted to continue doing so for three minutes, to an announcement that the national anthem of "The Republic of China" (also known as Taiwan) was being played -- marred the visit, to say the least.

It is hard for us to believe that the admission of a Falun Gong member to the White House press pool would go unnoticed by the White House staff, or that it would take three full minutes to silence her. We are, sad to say, cynical people, and it is plausible that the insults were deliberate. The American side had been leaking for weeks that Hu would try to use the visit for his own political ends in China, and wanted to be granted every honor conceivable during the trip. The White House appeared irritated by this hubris, although it would, on the surface, appear quite natural for the United States and China to exchange full diplomatic courtesies.

Obviously, something serious is going on in Sino-U.S. relations. The United States has openly discussed a hedge strategy on China, under which economic relations would proceed while the United States increased its military presence in the region as a hedge against future trouble. China, for its part, has been more than a little troublesome in areas where the United States does not want it to be, particularly during the current confrontation with Iran.

China and the United States are bound together economically. That is one of the major problems, since they need very different things. The Chinese economy, as we have argued in the past, is not doing nearly as well as its growth rate would indicate. We won't rehash our views on that. However, the economic reality creates an obvious tension. Chinese exports are surging at very low or nonexistent profit margins in order to sustain a financial system that has accrued a nonperforming loan burden that is, by some measures, as high as 60 percent of gross domestic product. The United States is addicted to Chinese imports, and China is addicted to exporting to the United States. The United States wants China to revalue the yuan in order to raise the price of Chinese exports. The Chinese, eager to maintain and increase exports, have no intention of allowing a meaningful rise in the yuan.

There are other forces binding the two countries together as well. The most important is Chinese money -- which is flowing out to other countries precisely because China is no longer a particularly attractive place for Chinese investment. There is serious capital flight under way, as money is redeployed to safer havens. The safest haven from the Chinese point of view is the United States -- thus, Chinese investment there is surging. And the United States needs this money. In this sense, both countries are in a death-lock. There is no other economy that is as large, liquid and safe as the American economy. Chinese investors need their funds to be in the United States. And there is no larger pool of cash than China's to finance U.S. debt.

This means that there is no divorce looming in Sino-U.S. relations. But at the same time, it must be noted that, despite very close connections between China and Japan, Sino-Japanese relations have deteriorated remarkably -- and it is China that has driven the estrangement. The reasons are political: China's government has domestic problems, and patriotic fervor will tend to buttress Beijing's power. Japan is still deeply hated for its behavior in World War II, and attacking Japanese behavior is good politics. The Chinese have strained relations with Japan nearly to the breaking point.

What is important here is this: It must not be assumed that China is driven purely by economic considerations. In the case of Japan, Beijing clearly has subordinated the economic advantage of having smooth relations with Tokyo to its own domestic considerations. Now, Japan is not the United States -- it is a significant country for China, but not economically decisive in the way that the United States is. The Chinese have more room for maneuver there. At the same time, it must be understood that China is playing a complex game, and while making money is up there on the priority list, it is not the only thing up there. Preserving national unity in the face of centrifugal forces and foreign power also matters a great deal to the Chinese.

It is therefore time to stop to consider China's national strategy in the long run, and therefore, to consider China's geopolitics.

The Geography Factor

Beginning, as is necessary, with the outlines of China's national boundaries, we are immediately struck by the fact that China is, in many ways, an island.

To the east are the South and East China Seas. To the northeast is Siberia, thinly inhabited and to a great extent uninhabitable. Some limited military expansion in that direction is possible, but a large population could not be sustained. To the direct north is Mongolia -- occasionally part of China, occasionally the ruler of China, but currently a fairly unimportant area, not worth projecting force into.

INDIA: To the southwest are the Himalayas. There is frequent talk of India as balancing China, but this is, in fact, meaningless. They are as much separated as if there were a wall. There can be skirmishes along the dividing line in the Himalayas, but no massive movement of armies.

In the southeast, there is Indochina. China could expand there, but the last time there were land-based skirmishes, in 1979, Vietnam beat the Chinese soundly (though both sides claimed victory). Jungles and mountains stretching from eastern India to the South China Sea make that region impassable, even without the need for self-defense. Finally, there are the western approaches into Central Asia, through Kazakhstan. This has been the traditional, and in some ways only, route for Chinese aggression. China is certainly deeply involved in Central Asia, but its own region of Xinjiang is both Muslim and hostile to Beijing. It does not provide a base for launching invasions, even if one was wanted.

For these reasons, China must be viewed as one of the most insular great powers in the world. It has occupied most of the terrain that is accessible to it; what remains is either inaccessible, undesirable or quite able to defend itself. China's great interest, therefore, should be the oceans. Over the past 20 years, China has become a major exporter and thus should have a great interest in securing its sea lanes. But China's coastal waters are effectively controlled by the U.S. 7th Fleet. Constructing a navy that could challenge the U.S. Navy would take a fortune, which China probably has, but also one or two generations would be needed -- not only for construction, but for establishing a military culture suitable for an aggressive naval force.

Most important, challenging the U.S. Navy with a Chinese navy cannot be done regionally. The United States has fleets other than the 7th Fleet, and if the U.S. Navy were concentrated against China, the Chinese could not fight a defensive battle. They would have to take the fight to the Americans, and that would mean fielding a global naval force. China might one day have that, but they do not have it now. In this sense, the standard concerns about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are not realistic. China does not have a naval force capable of taking control of the Taiwan Strait, nor the amphibious force needed to gain significant lodgment in Taiwan, nor therefore -- and this is the key -- the ability to sustain a multidivisional force in Taiwan.

The Internal Divide

China does not have many regional options with conventional forces nor, for that matter, does it face a conventional threat from within the region. China's primary geopolitical problem, and thus its chief military mission, is domestic. China is a highly diverse and fragmented country; maintaining control of the current extent of the country is the major strategic problem. Unlike most nations, whose external geopolitical problems define their military thinking, China's internal geopolitical problems drive its military planning.

There are two dimensions to these problems. The first is ethnic: China occupies areas like Xinjiang, Tibet and Manchuria that are ethnically distinct and sometimes restive. The other and deeper problem, however, is not ethnic but regional. China has a large coastal plain. It also has a vast interior that is mountainous. The tension between those two regions historically has been a great challenge that China has faced.

The interior is heavily driven by agriculture -- subsistence agriculture. It is extraordinarily poor, and arable land is minimal. The coastal regions are relatively better off, to the extent to which they conduct international trade through coastal ports. Thus, China has had two realities. In one, the coastal regions were cut off from the rest of the world, and there was a rough equality between the regions. Until the British showed up in the 19th century, for example, trading with foreigners had been illegal. After the British forced China open, the coastal regions boomed, and the country fragmented; the coastal regions, manipulated by foreigners who were in turn manipulated, turned outward to the ocean, while the interior stagnated. Mao tried to create a revolution in Shanghai and failed. Instead, he went on his Long March to Yenan in the interior, raised a peasant army from there, and came back to conquer the coast. He also closed off China from the world, creating poverty but relative unity.

Deng gambled with the idea that he would be able to have his cake and eat it too. He opened China to the world, thereby enriching the coastal regions and recreating the tension that Mao had sought to abolish. For 30 years, Deng's gamble worked. Now it is breaking down. Beijing is urgently trying to shift resources from the wealthy coastal regions to the restive interior. The coastal provinces naturally are resisting. The great question is whether Beijing will be able to juggle the two realities, whether China will again turn inward to maintain geopolitical integrity or if it will fragment further into warring regions.

Balancing the two indefinitely is the least likely outcome. But China does have one other card to play, which is patriotism. The Communist Party has little legitimacy at this point, but the idea of China -- particularly among ethnic Chinese of whatever region -- is not a trivial driver. In order to generate patriotic fervor, however, there must be a threat and an enemy. At this point, the Chinese are using the Japanese in order to sustain patriotism. Reclaiming Taiwan would stir the spirits and reduce regional tensions, but this, as we have pointed out, would be militarily difficult in any conventional way. Moreover, it would bring a confrontation with the United States.

Priorities and Options

If we accept the idea that maintaining the territorial integrity of China is its greatest geopolitical imperative and that regional prosperity comes second for Beijing, it follows that the government will attempt to impose its will on the coast, and trade and economic concerns will come second. Beijing's interest in having smooth trade relations wanes, both because the wealth gap exacerbates tensions between the regions and because the interest runs counter to its need for external confrontation. It follows from this that China's primary interest -- and ability -- would be to maintain security in China, and that foreign adventures would be avoided except under circumstances in which they would have a high probability of success and would serve internal political interests.

A secondary goal would be to protect China's coast from foreign encroachment. Imagine the following scenario: Business and Party interests in the coastal region are resisting Beijing's efforts to bring them under control and impose taxes. The situation becomes unstable, and Western interests, investments and the expatriate community living there are jeopardized. Through some political contrivance, these local leaders position themselves as the regional authority and ask for American intervention. The United States decides to intervene. Given that this is roughly what happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in China -- during which time there was a major American presence in Shanghai -- it is not as far-fetched as it might seem.

Under these circumstances, the government in Beijing would be forced to resist or abdicate. So, if the primary interest of China is the maintenance of internal security, a secondary interest would be deterring foreign interventions in the event of instability. The tertiary interest would be some form of force projection in the region, particularly against Taiwan -- which not only could be regarded as an internal security matter but would provide the regime with patriotic credibility.

If we accept the premises that China's major resources will go to the army for security purposes, and that China is at least a generation away from having a significant naval force, then what military options do the Chinese have? Obviously, one is its nuclear force. That is a serious deterrent; nations have attacked nuclear powers (Egypt and Syria against Israel in 1973) but not for the fairly marginal reasons the United States might have to get involved in China at some hypothetical future date. But given that deterrence runs both ways, nuclear stalemate always leaves opportunities for subnuclear threats.

The prime military lever within China's reach is not sea-lane control, but rather sea-lane denial. Using anti-ship missiles, the Chinese could impose heavy attrition on the sea-lanes leading to Taiwan and even potentially interdict Japan's sea-lanes. This would not guarantee China control of the sea-lanes, and that is a problem if China is importing oil by sea. However, in extremis, it would hurt Taiwan and Japan more than China. And if the Chinese had systems that could threaten to overload U.S. Aegis and follow-on systems designed to protect warships, then it could force the 7th Fleet to retreat as well. The tactic would serve as a deterrent against intervention and as a suitable secondary system to supplement the army. It would also serve as a threat to the interests, if not the survival, of Taiwan.

All of this is of course hypothetical and speculative. It assumes that the current trends in Chinese relations with Japan and the United States are merely road bumps rather than fundamental shifts in China's pattern. But given that China does shift its pattern every 30 years or so, and that the stresses on China make it reasonable to expect some shift -- and finally, given that there is a trend toward increased tensions in play -- it is not unreasonable to think of China in a different way than has been customary. China has been seen by Americans as a giant money factory. It is that, but it is both less than that and more. It is a great power facing other great powers, and a superpower. And while the scenarios here are extreme, thinking about the extremes can be useful.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The bonhomie between China and the Bengali Marxists continue. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi inaugurated the Chinese consulate in Kolkata on Sunday 7th September 2008. CPI(M) manages to, deliberately or not, look like the Chinese foreign policy arm in India. It is not only the NSG, but its entire likes and dislikes mirror that of the Chinese.

But does the opening of the new consulate portend growing friendliness between India and China. Far from it : NSG & CHINA – In 3 steps below.

1. High drama at NSG : India is miffed at China antagonistic role at the Nuclear Supplier’s group where China asked for Indian parity with Pakistan and requested additional resources from New Delhi which India may have considered very demeaning and akin to extracting a pound of flesh at a critical juncture.

2. When the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried to call the Chinese President Hu Jintao, the Chinese refused to take the call of the Indian Prime Minister and continued to snub the PM until the Americans intervened.

3. All the Indians could do was sulk. In retaliation, the angry Sonia Gandhi refused to see the Chinese Foreign Minister. To intimidate China, India last week announced the resurrection of forward air-force bases in the Northeast and Northwest.

A Pakistani think tank report stated : Beijing is ready to offer Pakistan a similar Nuclear deal that India got from the US. However Indian analysts who do not understand Chinese-Pakistani relations are expecting a public signing of a Pakistani-Sino deal in the same fashion as the Indo-US deal was announced. China and Pakistan work at different levels. The major difference is the Chinese Nuclear deal does not come with any strings and is cheaper. China has already built the Chasnupp 1 and the Chasnupp 2. To avoid a lot of publicity, the last time Pakistan and China worked out a nuclear deal (Chasnupp 2) it was announced without any pomp and ceremony.

An upgrade to the Gwader-China road and rail link is expected to bring huge benefits to the FATA that has already been signed between the two countries.

India today can block Chinese ships in the Indian ocean and this may prove decisive in any conflict with the Chinese. The Chinese do not have any aircraft carriers, but they will in 5 to 10 years time. Gwadar port in Pakistan gives them a chocking point with which to strangulate India with its “bead of pearls”. India may have constructed Chabahar port in Iran, but will it be enough?

The sad truth is that India is losing influence to the Chinese amongst all its neighbours, barring Bhutan.

Pakistan is long gone to the Chinese.

Nepal has a Maoist government sympathetic to China, its Premier visited China first in a break of protocol. India used to be the first port of call.

Chinese have started supplying missiles and launch pads to Bangladesh. The Chinese have supplied C-802A anti ship cruise missiles to Bangladesh which have a 120 kms range. With superior anti-jamming facilities, it hit ratio is an exceptional 98%.

The Chinese have supplied sophisticated 3D radars to Sri Lanka. To add insult to injury, Sri Lankan army has started buying Pakistani weapons using Iranian money. India supplied 2 D radars and clearly managed this game badly. We should have offered 3 D radars and avoided this.

Having said that, given the chaos in Kashmir and in Pakistan, India is faced with an extremely cunning and hostile China.

However, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Chinese to attack India and win a war (I will give a Stratfor article that will explain all this excellently), but they can take Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, and that will be a major psychological blow for India. Some battles are not won in the battlefields only!

India’s options :

1. Air force multiplers to be based in North East & Ladakh: Status – In Progress (The IAF is on course to base two squadrons (some 40 aircraft) of Sukhois, which have a cruising speed of 3,200 km, at Tezpur to counterbalance a Chinese threat on the eastern front. The air force has contracted some 230 Sukhoi-30MKI fighters from Russia in orders totaling over US $ 8.5-billion. The Ladakh sector has come to occupy lofty status in the IAF’s calculus as was evident when it reactivated the 2.1-km airstrip at Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) in northeastern Ladakh after 43 years.)2. Army commando units based in forward positions – Done3. Strengthen Tawang area by infrastructure, dams etc. Status – Not happening4. Cross over to Chinese side and cause incursions – Not happening.5. Internal sabotage through Tibetians and false flag recruitments of Uighur Muslims.6. Giving Brahmos and other top range missiles to Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, S.Korea, Taiwan (countries that view China with animosity).7. China is pushing 500 million people from farms and villages into cities too soon. Although it gets almost no publicity, China is experiencing hundreds of demonstrations around the country, which is unprecedented. These are not students in Tiananmen Square. These are average citizens who are angry with the government for building chemical plants and polluting the water they drink and the air they breathe. India should extend help to FALUN GONG and many other anti-establishment groups (incl martial arts groups, theatre & arts groups etc) and create dissenstion.

Given the population graph, India can go into China and take Mt. Kailash – it is India’s and ordained in our sacred texts. It is a price the Chinese should be made to pay for sitting on Aksai Chin. Sometimes, one has to shed inhibitions and project force. Psy-ops cannot be one sided.

And CPI(M) should be made to understand once and for all, CHINA is NOT A FRIEND OF INDIA. Not at all !!!

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

It is one of the many possibilities that has been playing in my mind. Mamata's strident stand had to have some economics. She may be above "corruption", but her party members are not. Singur saw songs, dances, and feasts while the "gherao" of TATA plant was on. Someone had to be paying for this. Logically it has to be someone who gains from TATAs leaving - and the name that crops up is BAJAJ. BAJAJ has ambitious plans for the "small car" segment too - hence NANO is a direct competition.

While this is all pure conjecture, I do have a right to speculate and exercise my freedom of speech.

TATA's require 900 acres plus - this includes the ancillary units who have to be close to "mother plant" for obvious reasons. It is possible that BAJAJ has stated that it will get its work done in 700 acres, so that the 300 acres in contention is not taken.

What happens to this 300 acres if taken out from the Vendor site, and returned to the "unwilling" farmers?

Because of fly ash and other materials at site, the land is "uncultivable" for at least 3 years. What will the farmers do for 3 years? Most likely they will sell it back to "vendors" or "real estate" players at a higher price and thus make a neat profit. And who will aid in this sale - hmmm - could it be some "Trinamool politicians"?

This is the most ugly industrial fiaso I have seen. BRAND BENGAL IS FINISHED - WHETHER TATAS STAY OR GO. It will take years to make up and then too, it will be too late. If INFOSYS goes too, BENGAL WOULD HAVE LOST 2 BEST COMPANIES - TATAS & INFY.

I cannot see this happening in KERELA even - forget anywhere else. Please start preparing to send your children abroad - Bengal is lost to hooligans ..............

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

I am regretting my decision to vote for Trinamool Congress in the last elections. I am not going to repeat it again !!

Trinamool has been taken over by ruffians – the Bengali “bhodrolok” is an anathema to them. Nothing much has changed in between 2006 & 2008.

In 2006 – Trinamool legislators brought the greatest shame to Bengal, when they smashed furniture in the Legislative Assembly – showing their true colours, but most importantly they showed the “low” quality of leaders that Bengal elected. I am guilty too of voting for this party, and for this I apologize.

The HINDU on April 03, 2007 reported and I quote : “All but one of the 30 Trinamool Congress legislators in the West Bengal Assembly have been together fined more than Rs.3.97 lakh for damages caused to property in unprecedented acts of vandalism committed inside the premises on November 30, 2006. Each of the 29 MLAs of the party present that day would have to pay Rs.13,704 as compensation for the loss suffered, Speaker H.A. Halim ruled on Monday.”

Which bring me to the present : September 2008. Look at the raised fist of Trinamool leader MADAN MITRA. When 3 people from IT industry went to meet Mamata Banerjee, Mitra is stated to have told the trio (which included a woman) : “ I WILL COUNT TILL THREE. IF BY THAT TIME YOU DON’T LEAVE, YOU WILL BE THRASHED. ONE, TWO …..”. Of course, these 3 ran for their lives. The 3 were APOLITICAL, and have hosted a site in support of industrialisation: http://wesupportindustry.silicogene.com/ISR/

MAMATA, you are surrounded by hooligans, and your party is now a 3rd rate “RUFFIAN PARTY”, belonging to a BANANA REPUBLIC.

AS A PROUND BENGALI, MAMATA DI - YOU ARE NOT ONLY A NATIONAL SHAME, BUT AN INTERNATIONAL SHAME FOR US !!

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

In my earlier post “POTENT COMBINATION”, I wrote : “However, what harms JUH-I’s interest is industrialization. If JUH-I’s core constituents start making money, they will lead the “good life”, start getting “educated” in regular schools and thus JUH-I’s grip on them will fade fast. Hence, most regressive Islamic leaders abhor industrialization.

But they cannot do it alone. They need a “desperate” actor. People like Laloo Prasad etc, are part of this group, who state SIMI is not a terrorist organization. Question is, where does Mamata stand? Will she allow herself to be exploited by Siddiqqullah and damage the industrial renaissance that Bengal needed by her short-sightedness?”

Remember Mulayam Singh Yadav – he wanted to give Fridays off as holidays in UP to appease the Muslims. The same goes for Mamata, and also shows the enormous clout Muslims and Naxalite groups are playing in Mamata’s stand, which single handedly is derailing West Bengal.

Question is: Other than citing dismay, what is the Left Front Govt. doing? NOTHING !! Have they factored in another industry in the place of TATAs? Their inaction is SHOCKING. Surely, its more than vote bank politics, or have we all become morally bankrupt?

Let’s postulate WEST BENGAL under MAMATA BANERJEE as CM. WHAT TO EXPECT?

1. All industries (private / public) to have reservation for SC/ST/OBC/ MUSLIMS and this will exceed 50%2. All Industries to pay more to state exchequer, including many “pro-people” incentives to workers (including part time workers), making Trianamool UNION a ferocious entity.3. No new industry will come up. So say good bye to INFOSYS, MITTALS etc – a loss of Rs 80,000 Crs investment and counting4. With negative industrial growth, job scenario will dwindle creating chaos in villages and turbulence in cities, the right mix that will aid the Naxalites and Muslims.5. Closing down of shopping malls for being anti – people6. Closing down of Clubs for being too “bourgeoisie”7. FRIDAYS to be declared a Holiday to appease her core constituency. Get ready to work on SUNDAYS.8. All FOOTPATHS are to be re-named "HAWKERS ONLY ZONE". Please start walking on ROADS !!

Lin Piao’s theory of occupying the villages before overwhelming the cities comes to mind when I see MAMATA today.

A plea to LEFT FRONT Govt. See what you have done from the 70s, given rise to a siege mentality when the best industries left Kolkata. See how Mumbai and Gujrat prospered at the expense of Bengal. This is your last chance to Right a Wrong. Don’t let MAMATA & her “rowdies” take BENGAL away from INDIA.

Monday, September 1, 2008

SAVE FARMLAND COMMITTEE is agitating with Mamata Banerjee. Yet, a senior ACTIVIST of "Save Farmland Committee" has no qualms of acting as a broker for land in SINGUR. WHAT A SHAM ?

Here's why? (NOTE : 3 BIGHAS = 1 ACRE)

When BENGAL Govt acquired land in SINGUR in 2006, the price of single crop land was Rs 3.90 Lakh / bigha and for multiple crop land it was Rs 4.27 Lakh / bigha. Today (2008), the rate for single crop land is Rs 16 Lakh / bigha and for multiple crop land it is Rs 25 Lakh / bigha.

If TATAs pull out, the prices will crash and most of the TRINAMOOL activists do not want that. They want to eat the cake too !!

While one faction is supplyling raw materials to TATA plant and making money, the other faction is busy brokering land deals. The big daddies of course, want some of the land back, so that they can then sell it off to real estate and make a killing at the current prevailing prices.

But once govt acquires land, it cannot return it to private parties. Should they return it, let Govt. give a caveat : that these private farmers cannot resell the land and the right of first purchase remains with the Govt and at old prices. All AGITATION will STOP.

THERE IS A STRANGE THING IN SINGUR AGITATION. THE PROTESTORS ARE BEING FED TWICE DAILY AND THE MINIMUM COST IS PEGGED AT RS. 1 CRORE PER DAY. Will TRINAMOOL CONGRESS please tell me where they are getting this kind of funds. WHO IS PAYING FOR THE SINGUR GHERAO?

Tata’s Nano be damned – according to Mamata Banerjee. She is hell bent on returning 400 acres of land(NOTE: IT IS ACTUALLY A CASE OF LESS THAN 200 ACRES) back to farmers. The problem with short sighted leaders is that they remain oblivious to macro issues. They get embroiled into micro issues and lose focus. Sometimes they do not want to see the truth even if it stares them at the face.

Where ever Tata’s have gone, they have done only good. Their integrity and honesty is well known. On one of my travels to Bangladesh a year ago, all my contacts there had only one question: "when are the Tatas coming to Bangladesh?" Such is the goodwill of this group. Average Bangladeshis may not like India or Indians per se, but Tatas are welcome with open arms in Bangladesh.

Tatas are welcome with open arms anywhere in India too – they were in Bengal too – and rightly so. The spin offs from a major industry through its ancilliary industries will have a positive spin off to the employment and economics of the region.

Mamata’s party got decimated in the last polls – she has always been on the look out for issues and help now comes via Siddiqullah - the Jamaat Ulema-i-Hind (JUI-H) general secretary, now the peasants' movement's latest cult figure. Siddiqullah denies that there is a communal angle, yet his newly-formed political outfit People's Democratic Conference of India, has an overwhelming majority of people (in his anti-land grab movement) belonging to a particular community (read : Muslims).

Muslims comprise over 28% of the population of West Bengal – so said Owaisi in speech in the Parliament while endorsing the nuclear deal – and I have no reason to doubt it. However, unconfirmed IB reports, puts this figure far higher – as West Bengal is reeling from twin effects of a) illegal migration from Bangladesh and b) astounding birth rates of Bangladeshi migrant population. Given that Muslims are 28% of the state’s population, there is less than a 3% Muslim representation in the State bodies. Most of the Muslims are poor and their “madrassah” education acts as a barrier for “integration” to society. (There will be another chapter on the ills of Madrassah and its consequent effects on Indian life). Several of these madrassah educated “dark” forces live in 14th century and look upon themselves only as “Soldiers of Islam”. In that they needed to form a party, to assert their views.

However, what harms JUH-I’s interest is industrialization. If JUH-I’s core constituents start making money, they will lead the “good life”, start getting “educated” in regular schools and thus JUH-I’s grip on them will fade fast. Hence, most regressive Islamic leaders abhor industrialization.

But they cannot do it alone. They need a “desperate” actor. People like Laloo Prasad etc, are part of this group, who state SIMI is not a terrorist organization. Question is, where does Mamata stand? Will she allow herself to be exploited by Siddiqqullah and damage the industrial renaissance that Bengal needed by her short-sightedness?

Pakistan and China are giving help to the Naxalite movement in India. Naxalite leader Purnendu Bose, now one of the partners of the Krishi Jami Raksha Committee, is part of Mamata Banerjee today. There is a lady Ms DOLA SEN, a Naxalite and a close confidante of Ms MAMATA BANERJEE. The movement is being dictated by Purnendu & Siddiqullah. Hence, Pakistan and China are by default helping stall India’s progress, and Mamata is the willing pawn.

The “gherao” of TATA plant is inhuman, threatening workers abominal. At some level, I do feel that TATAs should move away from Singur and let the farmers grow potato again, let them see how much of a colossal blunder they have made. But BRAND BENGAL would be DEAD by then.

Welcome PAKSITAN, Welcome CHINA : through MAMATA DI !!!

History is that Mamata is short – sighted : remember her bungling days in the Railway Ministry, when she almost drove the Railways into a financial mess, with her shoddy budgets.

I hope, for the sake of Bengal, Mamata di, you do not make the blunder of shutting Tatas out. You will help strengthen the hands of “communal forces” and history will not be kind to you.

Instead of asking the ancillaries to shift, please shift the farmers.

If Mamata goes ahead and Tatas move out, let us fellow citizens in BENGAL - wow to defeat her party in the coming elections, so that in Lok Sabha at least she gets ZERO seats, and in state elections, CONGRESS becomes the main Opposition. TRINAMOOL CONGRESS SHOULD BE WIPED OFF !!!

OTHERWISE, IN 50 YEARS TIME, WEST BENGAL MAY SECEDE TO BANGLADESH !! AND WHO IS THEREFORE, PAYING RS 1 CRORE FOR FEEDING THE AGITATORS DAILY?

It is not in some dark corners of Afghanistan or tribal areas of Pakistan, this incident happened in our backyard, in Bengal. In July 2008.

Telegraph August 1st 2008: A 30 year old man was beheaded after a kangaroo court in a Murshidabad village decided he must die because he had married a girl from another community (read: MUSLIM), and the couple had hidden his religion from her family. The “shalishi” gave its verdict that the punishment was death and that he must be beheaded. And he was.

Anisur Rahman, writing for “The Daily Star” of Bangladesh describes SALISHI - “In BANGLADESH dispute resolution outside the court is a common phenomenon in the rural area. It is shalishi (mediation).”

BANGLADESH ?? Ah well, the landless of Bangladesh who are kingmakers in Assam (read my other article on this) it seems are LAWMAKERS in WEST BENGAL.

And the Holy book (Quran) sanctions it :

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”

There are too many killings and deaths in India and we are probably immune to deaths that do not affect us directly. But this beheading is a VERY SERIOUS warning of the way things are.

If this were not enough : Telegraph (30th July 2008) holds out further distressing news: “Lashkar camp in Bengal village”. It is not one misguided youth, WE ARE TALKING OF A “WHOLE CAMP” BEING RUN IN WEST BENGAL.

“Sikandar was held in Jammu last week. With the alleged guidance of Sikandar and Mohammad Safique, a Lashkar man operating in Bangladesh, Mustaque had opened an organisation called Al-e-Hadis. It was formed a couple of months ago to recruit youths from the Raghunathgunj area (in WEST BENGAL). Lashkar leaders would often visit the place and attend classes with local people to motivate them to join the organisation,” said CID special inspector-general S.N. Gupta. Nazrul, a schoolteacher, used to help Mustaque run the camp.”

This begs a few questions?1. Does the writ of the govt of West Bengal and its law, run into the deepest corners of the state?2. What is the demographic profile in these border states and how has this changed over the last 30 years?3. The number of mosques and madrassas that have opened year on year in West Bengal in the last 30 years?4. As in Assam, are we too giving away our right to “our way of life” and accepting a “dogmatic culture”?5. What is the role of Intelligence Bureau and how “DARK” are they on these frightening developments?

B) LANDLESS IN BANGLADESH ... KINGMAKERS IN INDIA

Bangladesh is the 7th most populous country in the world, with population around 150 million. 85% of this population (127.50 million) live in rural areas. And of this, 50% (63.75 million) are landless. This huge number of landless people who have no land and are indeed very poor. Hence, a staggering 42.5% of Bangladesh’s total population is LANDLESS !

Those who have land also saw it getting fragmented. Islamic law of inheritance states that land is to be equally divided amongst sons. Available land got sub-divided further and this led to further impoverishment. The richest 10% of villagers hold 50% of land and the bottom 60% hold less than 25% of land.

The landless together with the bottom 60% of landed labourers in Bangladesh form a huge number who are economically disgruntled and their trek to India in search of a better life is DEEMED “justified”. They have trekked into Assam, Bengal, Bihar, UP, Maharashtra and other parts of India. Most of them have become “CITIZENS of INDIA” having ration cards, voters ID card, and in a position to play the role of kingmakers today.

IS THIS GOOD FOR INDIA ??LET US SEE THE CASE OF ASSAM:

Indian Express carried this article on 1st August 2008, and concluding the report, stated: “People of Bangladeshi origin, who have managed to enrol themselves as voters in the state, on the other hand, have MULTIPLIED at such a rate that today they are the deciding factor in at least 45 Assembly constituencies and 4 Lok Sabha constituencies in Assam."

For the longest time, our politicians and our corrupt police force have been the bane of independent INDIA. On the other hand, private enterprise, freed from the shackles of license raj in 1990s, really moved India forward, specially in the services sector to propel Indian to be reckoned as a global economic superpower today.

The sad reality is this: The politicians are allowing this illegal migration and settlement of these “intruders” from Bangladesh to increase their electoral base. To win elections, they are leaving behind the legacy of a fractured India and its horrific consequences.

Indian Express, in the same article states two points to state this:1. The Congress, which has always been accused of protecting the monorities, has remained in denial mode as far as the influx is concerned.2. Former Chief Minister of Assam, Hiteswar Saikia, who in August 1994, told the Assembly that there were 30 lakh (30,00,000) Bangladeshis in Assam, had to RETRACT his statement within a couple of days after JAMIAT ULEMA I HIND (JUIH) threatened to pull down his government

Look at the power JUIH wielded over the Chief Minister – and all this over the “illegal population” from Bangladesh now holding Indian “I-Cards”.

Justice BK Sharma of the Guwahati High Court stated in July 2008: “Bangladeshi infiltrators have a major role in electing representatives both to the Legislative Assembly and Parliament, hence in the decision making process towards nation building. They have become KINGMAKERS”.

There is no need to hide behind "DIPLOMACY" - we should face facts and tell it as it is - WYSIWYG (WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET)!!

Taslima protests by unruly Muslim mobs in Kolkata, Md Sporting fans clashing with Mohun Bagan fans, Mamata Banerjee under the influence of Marxists and Islamists (JUHI) is a well planned movement by Islamists. See also what is happening in Kashmir. Juxtapose the % of Muslims in these two states (J&K : > 70% Muslims and W. BENGAL: > 25% Muslims), and read this article and postulate your own views !!!

DR. PETER HAMMOND'S BOOK " SLAVERY, TERRORISM & ISLAM: HISTORICAL ROOTS & CONTEMPORARY THREAT". Brilliant analysis, and I could not have put it any better. Hence this is my FIRST POST !!

Based on real life observation and statistics...may be true..may be half true.. ...May be all are not same...but by and large seems to be truth based on facts...Muslim population themselves may not be fully aware that how things as given below happen...but it happens later or sooner....

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons..

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.